a reply to: DeathSlayer
You wrote QUOTE
'This is not a Christian teaching and he is not a Christian because we do not blaspheme God or his son I have never heard a Christian refer to Christ
as a drag queen or a homosexual.'
I am not necessarily defending the thesis of this fringe-professor, but he managed somehow to raise some dust off this old subject of the sexual
preference for R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (c. BCE 12 - 36 CE) aka 'Jesus' (Gk. 'ho Iesous') in the canonical four Greek council-approved
'gospels'in the Christian 'bible,' especially the 4th Greek Gospel ('according to John', whoever he was).
Interestingly, perhaps, is the 4th Gospel's use of 'typology' wherein deeds associated with a biblical figure from the past (e.g. Elisha'q or David)
are re-lived by 'Jesus' (e.g. whereas Elisha'q in the book of 2 Kings turns a pot of poisoned porridge into something edible (i.e. healthy gruel),
'Jesus' miraculously changes 'water' into 'wine' at the Wedding at Cana'; whereas Elisha'q raises from death the Widow of Nain's son by laying on top
of the boy and breathing into his mouth, 'Jesus' raises Eleazar/Lazarus from the dead by a spell (e.g. 'Lazarus, step forward !'), whereas Elisha'q
raises an expensive iron axe-head from falling into the water & 'Jesus' walks on top of the waters of Lake Gennasareth &tc each time "Jesus' out-does
his biblical predecessor.
The same can be said vis a vis David & the 'son of David', i.e. 'Jesus' with respect to 'Jonathan', David's homosexual love-interest in the Books of
Samuel ('...and David loved Jonathan as his own life...', 'Jonathan, how my soul aches for you; your love was full of wonderment to me, far-stronger
than any love for a woman ! (2 Sam 1:29ff); or Saul's rebuke of Jonathan's cross-dressing ('confusion'): 'You son of a peverted and obscene female !
Do you imagine that I do not know that you have 'chosen to marry' that son-of-Jesse to the confusion of your own mother's nudity and to your own
'confusion'? If you persist [in this folly] how on earth can your royal-lineage be generated?' (1 Sam 20:30), the last passage of which contains 7
rare Hebrew verbs and nouns having to do specifically with homosexuality and cross-dressing.
Whereas David in the 'Old Testament' exchanged vows, armour & underwear with 'John' (='Jonathan'), 'Jesus' in the 4th Gospel is portrayed as a person
in a position of authority to have 'a disciple who was his lover' (the word in Greek is 'mathetes', which is grammatically a masculine-singular); that
is to say there was someone who is not actually named in the book, but thought to be called 'John' (hence thought to be the author of the whole
Gospel) was called 'the disciple whom Jesus was in love-with' who 'reclined' during a pre-pesach meal 'upon the breast of Jesus' sharing
whispers--thereby shewing a 'typology' with the earlier ('old-testament') David and his own male-lover Jonathan.
An excised section of the second canonical Greek gospel (called, 'Secret-Mark') discovered in the form of a Greek-shorthand transcript of an Epistle
to Theodore (otherwise unknown) by Clement of Alexandria written originally c. 200 CE about the homosexual gnostic sect called the Carpocratians dated
c. 1725 plastered to the back of an old book by Vossius in 1646 of writings of Ignatius of Antioch by Morton Smith at the Mar Saba Monastery near the
Dead Sea in 1958 details the story of the raising of a naked young man out of a tomb, causing him to 'love him and being clad with only a linen cloth
over his naked [body] begs Iesous that he might be with him...and Iesous spent the night with him...' phrases which Clement apparently took to
understand that 'those heretics the Carpocratians' were referring to some kind of covert homosexual activity that was going on.
There are many aspects of the earliest Nazorean-Christian baptismal rites which are not known/understood/recorded for posterity, some of which may
have included physical male-on-male symbolic actions which to-day's Christians might find surprisingly indecent and wide-open to sexual
edit on 7-6-2018 by Sigismundus because: (no reason given)